simpson: i yield two minutes to my good friend from oklahoma, mr. cole. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. cole: i must begin by expressing two reservations about the legislation in front of us. the first is the manner in which it arrived on the floor. like my colleagues on my side, we're used to and treasure the idea that appropriations bills should come to this floor under an open rule so every member can come forward and offer good suggestions and the product could be improved. we didn't do that in this case and it is regrettable. the bill would have been better and i think the process a little less rankerous. i express my sentments and agreement with mr. simpson about the spending levels. there are a lot of good projects in this bill but whether or not we can sustain them is a very legitimate question and we will have to wrestle with them again and again in bill after bill. i would like the balance of my comments with three positive observations about this product. the first is the process under which we arrived at a bill. i h

i want to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from oklahoma, mr. cole. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for one minute. mr. cole: i rise today to speak against this flawed cap and trade or cap and tax legislation. there's no good time for a bad idea, madam speaker this bad bill is nothing more or less than a national energy tax. the legislation will force american families to pay on average more than $3,000 a year in additional energy costs. the majority would like us to believe that passing this legislation will benefit all americans. nothing could be further from the truth. under this bill, energy producing states like oklahoma will be economically punished and devastated. residents in rural areas who must commute long distances to work will be disproportionately affected. rising fuel prices coupled with rising energy costs will force people to make ever tougher choices. many will face reduced living standards, spending less, saving less, going without many items they need far decent life. for over 100 years the people

and i have really appreciated mr. cole and mr. obey who have been so sensitive and concerned about these tribal issues. and we have made substantial increases. but even with that, with the work that still remains to be done, there is still more that needs to be done in order to take care of the issues in our indian country. and the hearings this year, where we got into law enforcement and the need for more law enforcement, the need for recognition, the laws are covering tribal areas today are not sufficient. and the justice department needs to take action on this. so i commend the gentleman from idaho for his solid work and participation. and let's get on with the amendments. if you yield back, i yield back. mr. simpson: i thank you. and thank you as i said in the opening statement. i thank you for the oversight hearings we have had. it's the best i have had in my time in congress in terms of the oversight hearings we have had done. and you have done a masterful job of it. and i yield back. mr. dicks: i yield back. the chair: the

mr. cole: i thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for his generous praise. mr. speaker, i rise today in opposition to this conference report, and i do that with a heavy heart, quite frankly. when this measure was initially before us i supported it enthusiastically. and in my remarks i praised the president. i thought he made a tough decision and deserved bipartisan support. i praised the majority because they had brought us, i think, a very good and finally crafted bill. and frankly, i was proud of the minority because we stepped up unconditionally, supported the president, provided the votes that he needed to win and make a difference, to have not just a bipartisan majority of the republican votes that put us in the majority. i felt like we dealt with the president and the administration in good faith. frankly, i don't think since that point that faith has been reciprocated. over the course of the process, as this legislation has moved through, i.m.f. funding has been added. it scores at $5 but it's considerable a greater amount of money that will be deployed.

mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator cole. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. attorney general, at your confirmation hearing you said that guantanamo will be closed. the administration has been making progress in finding countries that will accept those detainees who have been cleared for release and recently began court proceedings for one detainee in a federal court in new york. this is good progress. president obama said some detainees will have to be held for, quote, long detention, because some detainees who pose significant threats cannot be tried for their crimes. are we really meeting the goals behind closing guantanamo if we simply bring detainees to the united states for what could be indefinite retention? >> what we're trying to do, senator, is make individualized determinations of what should happen to the people presently held at guantanamo. some we think will go into a category where they will be tried either in article 3 courts, federal commissions, some can be transferred and released and the possibility will be in a third category where they wi

mr. montgomery, i apologize for not asking you any questions but my time is limited. i'm sorry. thank you. >> thank you, senator bunning. senator cole? >> thank you very much, mr. bloom. a month ago, mr. ratner appeared before our committee in a closed door meeting and he said it would cost more to retool the chrysler engine plant in kenosha, wisconsin, and he felt that in light of that, they're better off just moving those jobs to mexico. with all the taxpayer money that chrysler has received, i don't understand in spite of his statement why we would move these jobs to mexico. doesn't it make better sense to utilize the retooling fund that is available for something just such as this, to retool that factory in keshnosha so we can keep those jobs here in the united states? >> let me try to respond to that, senator. first, i want to deal with a process point. i think clearly, the company did a poor job of communicating with local elected officials and community folks about the kenosha decision and i believe the ceo has apologized for that. it was not proper and i hope we won't have a repeat of that in terms of the communication. in t

mr. henderson? >> yes, sir. >> thanks. >> thanks. >> those were thoughtful and helpful questions. in closing i should point out that senators lincoln and senator nelson of nebraska and senator coleof wisconsin had asked for the committee to pursue a line of questioning surrounding the closing of the dealersh dealerships, presumably, in their states. without objection, these statements, questions on their part will be a matter of the record. also without objection, all full statements of the committee will be included in the hearing record. and the advice of distinguished ranking member, if members have questions, further questions, they would like to be able to get them to you and have them, and this may be hard. but it can be done. have them answered by friday. are you willing to do that? >> yes, sir. >> finally i want to thank everybody for being here. it's a long hearing. there was a lot of emotion. a lot of things were said that people didn't want to say. it was a tough hearing but it was sort of at the very fulcrum of where we are going in america. how are our systems working? how are we paying attention? and i consider it a very valuable hearing. i consider the audience ve